> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:34:51 +0200> > > > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:> > > >> If you don't "see" it as ugly it's simply because your brain> >> is not wired up to see 3D/2D geometry as a significant> >> source of information. A significant portion (I'd > >> guesstimate a narrow majority) of kernel hackers *does* see> >> 2D/3D layout details in code and finds inconsistencies in > >> them counterproductive.> >> > >> ( It's roughly the same distinction that makes some people> >> love the typographic layout of the iPhone/iPad while > >> others consider it unnecessary bling. )> > > > Another example are the recent Google+ layout changes. Those who > > don't see 2D details found it an unnecessary waste of screen > > real estate.> > > > To me and many others the new layout, while sparser, is actually > > noticeably less taxing to read, because information is > > structured in such a "geometrically obvious" way.> > I guess us visual retards will have to find a new web site to > use then, thanks for the lesson Ingo.

All I'm trying to point out is that it's a visual conflict that exists which probably has genetic origins.

For you it's too much whitespace, for me (and apparently Linus) the lack of it results in harder to read patterns of code due to missing geometric symmetry clues.

Since I don't have your brain and your eyes I cannot know exactly how bad the extra whitespaces are for you - and you probably don't know how bad the lack of symmetry is for me and others.

So I did not intend to make any judgement about it one way or another, but I guessed that a bit more vertical size is probably less taxing than less structure - but I'm obviously biased. If it's really bad for you we can still reconsider.

( I suspect it would be pretty hard but not impossible to construct an objective readability test to settle similar issues scientifically and create an 'ideal' coding style based on objective rules alone, eliminating subjective 'taste'. )